See, e.g., Donatelli Dec. Ex. C, Clause 25. On the basis of this clause, defendants Rize Denizcilik, A.S. and Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. have moved to dismiss, contending that the clause requires plaintiff to bring the instant suit in Korea. For the reasons briefly stated below, the motion is granted, without prejudice, however, to plaintiff's subsequently bringing an in rem action in a United States forum against the ship defendant, M/V Kasif Kalkavan, which has hitherto not been arrested in this case.

The initial question presented by the motion is whether the above-quoted clause violates § 3(8) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ("COGSA"), which provides that:

Plaintiff here claims that the instant clause falls within this latter, prohibited category because one or more of three aspects of Korean law allegedly deprive plaintiff of the statutory remedies safeguarded by COGSA.
*fn1"
Those aspects are (i) the difficulty under Korean law of effecting service on defendant Rize Denizcilik, A.S., the shipowner; (ii) the unavailability under Korean law of an in rem action against the ship, M/V Kasif Kalkavan;
*fn2"
and (iii) the alleged applicability of a principle of Korean law that permits a plaintiff to sue only one carrier, necessitating a choice between a suit against the shipowner and a suit against the charterer. The first and third difficulties, however, have now been obviated by stipulation. Specifically, on October 20, 1997, defendant Rize Denizcilik, A.S. stipulated that "it shall submit to the jurisdiction of the Korean court and shall waive all service of process formalities and service of process defenses," and both moving defendants stipulated that they would "assume the responsibilities and liabilities (if the Korean court finds liability) of a carrier under Korean law." Stipulation of October 20, 1997 (filed December 31, 1997).

It is true that the remaining difficulty, viz., plaintiff's inability under Korean law to bring an in rem action against the vessel, would appear to deprive plaintiff of one of the substantive rights expressly guaranteed by § 3(8). That section forbids "any clause . . . in a contract of carriage relieving the carrier or the ship from liability . . . or lessening such liability," 46 U.S.C. app. § 1303 (emphasis added), a clear reference to an in rem proceeding. That language would be rendered meaningless if an in rem action were viewed simply as a procedural device not protected under § 3(8) as interpreted by Sky Reefer. Nor is the Court persuaded by the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Cho-Yang Shipping Company, Ltd., 131 F.3d 1336, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 36360, 1997 WL 792672 (9th Cir. 1997), which reached the opposite conclusion, for the court there appears wholly to have ignored the above-quoted statutory language that refers to the ship's own liability. See id. at *4.

Nonetheless, the M/V Kasif Kalkavan has not in fact been arrested in this case, and the Court has the discretion -- which it hereby exercises -- to dismiss an in rem action when a vessel has yet to be arrested and the plaintiff has made only an unsupported allegation that the vessel will be present in the district during the pendency of the action. See Vanol U.S.A. v. M/T Coronado, 663 F. Supp. 79, 82 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (citing International Terminal Operating Co. v. Skibs A/S Hidlefjord, 1973 AMC 2568, 2571 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)); see also Itel Container International Corp. v. Atlanttrafik Express Service Ltd., 686 F. Supp. 438, 445 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).

Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.